- Joined
- Oct 9, 2012
- Messages
- 15,182
- Reaction score
- 2,087
they did my boys dirty mang.Those were the eye sores that I just noticed and then I scrolled down and read your post. SSR and Usyk are barely Top 10? Okay.
they did my boys dirty mang.Those were the eye sores that I just noticed and then I scrolled down and read your post. SSR and Usyk are barely Top 10? Okay.
ESPN's P4P list is the one that I probably value the least next to BoxRec's. ESPN doesn't make their list easy to check in the first place. Their P4P list's URL is dynamic when it should be fixed for accessibility. They could also potentially decide to rank their own fighters (house fighters) higher if they wanted to show favoritism. The door is wide open for it to happen. They don't have as many panelists voting as the TBRB and BWAA do, either.they did my boys dirty mang.
I mean, thats the same with Ring Magazine though and GoldenboyESPN's P4P list is the one that I probably value the least next to BoxRec's. ESPN doesn't make their list easy to check in the first place. Their P4P list's URL is dynamic when it should be fixed for accessibility. They could also potentially decide to rank their own fighters (house fighters) higher if they wanted to show favoritism. The door is wide open for it to happen. They don't have as many panelists voting as the TBRB and BWAA do, either.
they have valdez as a serious P4P contender lolESPN's P4P list is the one that I probably value the least next to BoxRec's. ESPN doesn't make their list easy to check in the first place. Their P4P list's URL is dynamic when it should be fixed for accessibility. They could also potentially decide to rank their own fighters (house fighters) higher if they wanted to show favoritism. The door is wide open for it to happen. They don't have as many panelists voting as the TBRB and BWAA do, either.
Yes, the door has been wide open for them as well. I've talked about both before and their connections to fighters (as their promoters) and the networks themselves. What The Ring really wanted was Canelo rated P4P #1, obviously. So, they kept Golovkin rated #1 (no other major list, the four others, had GGG rated #1) hoping that Canelo would take his spot. However, Doug Fischer spoke up when Canelo tested positive for Clenbuterol and he was removed from their rankings altogether prior to the rematch. Canelo just reentered their rankings currently at the P4P #3 spot.I mean, thats the same with Ring Magazine though and Goldenboy
I don't think so. Alot of his wins are 'barely' wins. To be great you have to dominate the opposition, not get lucky points victories.
Of course you do, it's the eyeball test. Crawford is rated highly because he has just marched through his opposition as much as the quality of his opponents. P4P has an element of perceived ability to it, not just achievements. You judge each win on how the boxer performed. That's why Deontay sometimes makes the P4P list because he certainly doesn't make it for the quality of his opposition.According to who? You don't get to decide certain wins are irrelevant.
Exactly.P4P lists are not solely based on resumes
Of course Ali is great. He passes the eyeball test and he has some great wins against the best opposition, certainly better opposition than Canelo has faced.I guess Ali is not great then.
Roy Jones was great until he wasn't.
How's AJ not worthy of being on the list? He's arguably the top heavyweight, has some good wins, good form and great power. Has knocked out all his competition except for Parker and if it counts (since it seems like it does for Loma), also a great amateur career, winning two gold medals. He's more worthy of being there than Spence IMO.Srisaket and Usyk at 8 and 9? Spence #5? AJ on the list? ooooffffff
How's AJ not worthy of being on the list? He's arguably the top heavyweight, has some good wins, good form and great power. Has knocked out all his competition except for Parker and if it counts (since it seems like it does for Loma), also a great amateur career, winning two gold medals. He's more worthy of being there than Spence IMO.
I mean, he's a very good fighter, but I don't see his accomplishments or skills as being particularly worthy when there are others who have done more. I don't have Spence on my list either, though he's making a case for himself.How's AJ not worthy of being on the list? He's arguably the top heavyweight, has some good wins, good form and great power. Has knocked out all his competition except for Parker and if it counts (since it seems like it does for Loma), also a great amateur career, winning two gold medals. He's more worthy of being there than Spence IMO.
Canelo has the best resume overall and a huge recent win. There's no question he gets the top spot IMO.
Sor Rungvisai deserves better. A 3-wins streak over former P4P number 1 Gonzalez and Estrada is a very impressive achievement.
I guess since I htink so highly of Crawford, I'll be the one to argue for him. Firstly, while it's true Crawford's resume is weak relative to SSR or Canelo, I think Crawford's resume is better than many are willing to give credit for. I'll start by saying that yes, Indongo, Diaz and many others look bad after they fight Crawford, but at the same time, Crawford took them all on when they were hot and he beat them all And he did it in a way which showed versatility and where he never really looked in trouble. Outboxing Postol the way he did really impressed me, and while I think Horn is mediocre, he was also supposed to be the bigger, stronger guy and Crawford beat him there too.Arguing off of quality of win, it's pretty much impossible to have Crawford over Canelo. I don't think it's unreasonable to say Crawford is a better fighter, and the fact he was lineal in two weight classes is impressive (Canelo has the same accolade), but Crawford's best win is probably Viktor Postol. Canelo has four wins better than Postol (Cotto, Trout, Lara, and Golovkin). The fights might have been close, but all of those wins were earned. I can see the argument for Lomachenko after he beat Linares as Linares was noticeably bigger and a half-decent champion (Canelo's resume is still far better on paper, but there is probably enough there, otherwise, to argue for Lomachenko), but it's hard to see the argument for Crawford at the moment.
As per usual, Sor Rungvisai is given the shit end of the stick.
Postol, Indongo, Gamboa. Maybe Horn.Lower. Who has he fought that sniffs the top 50 P4P?
Ive been saying its Canelo and i think this win vindicates that.
At 28 he already has a storybook career with wins over great fighters or former great fighters and some with big names
Wins over Golovkin, Cotto, Trout, Lara, Mosley, Khan, Chavez Jr, and a young loss to Mayweather.
He'll be this generations most remembered fighter.
Still can't really see how Crawford ranks #2.
Their names still carry weight.Meh, not to nitpick, but I wouldn't include punch drunk, slow AF Mosley or Lazy AF no discipline JCC Jr. on that list of accolades.
Lara, Cotto, GGG and Trout are legit wins however.
and I made a killing off Canelo to win ITD against Khan, so ...I guess that's a good win too.
Their names still carry weight.